Anyone Notice This One?

In the last quarter, Sen. Harry Mitchell raised $561,654.15, while incumbent U. S. Rep. J. D. Hayworth raised $525,665.50. This still leaves Mitchell with less cash on hand ($666,476.15 vs. $1,049,710.60 for Hayworth), but one has to wonder why a six-term incumbent that has a decent national profile isn’t able to outraise Mitchell.

It also is probably an indication of how good Mitchell’s fundraising operation is. One has to remember that Mitchell has only been in the race for a few months, where as Hayworth has been raising money for this for years.

8 thoughts on “Anyone Notice This One?

  1. I’d also like to see a breakdown of donors to each campaign – AZ vs. out of AZ and small (< $500) vs. large (>$500).

    Is there a listing anywhere on the web yet? The updated reports weren’t on the FEC’s website as of last night.

    My expectation is that Harry Mitchell’s report will show that he has far more donors with smaller average donations, and a far higher percentage of his donors from AZ, than JD.

    Those are only guesses, though. Can’t wait to see the hard numbers.

    As for why Mitchell outraised Hayworth, maybe it’s simply because more people like Harry.

  2. maybe it has something to do with the fact his campaign manager Joe Eule is running the campaign part-time when he isn’t running Foghorn’s congressional office?

    it also probably has helped Harry to be on the DCCC top ten list (or whatever they’re calling it)

  3. An interesting top-level comparison between JD and Harry… To date, JD has gotten 49% of his total contributions from PACs as compared to 23% for Harry.

  4. Ted! That was awful! *laughs*

    Harry is well liked in his local area and he can get people not active to volunteer for him. I was at my orthodondist the other day and the lady in charge of the finances came over to tell me she AND her husband had been calling regularly for Harry. She also said that her husband hated phones and avoided them whenever possible yet he was doing hour or more at the HQ in Tempe.

  5. A number of years back I read a book by, I think, Jacobson on Congressional elections. One thing he said was that it was not as important that a challenger raise as much as an incumbent.

    Basically, the more a challenger narrowed the gap, the better it was for challengers and worse it was for incumbents. Basically, that it showed viability and the challenger could hang in the ad war. It could also raise their name rec. which is the usual problem for challengers. Obviously that wasn’t a problem here in the first place.

    These numbers are very good news for Mitchell, in my opinion.

Comments are closed.